It really doesn’t matter what forums or social networks you are visiting, or even the Country most of its users are from; frequently most of the discussions are about how to get angry with the politician presently in charge, but hardly about what can be done to improve the situation.
I don’t mean to convince you that I’m not part of that. I am, since my most human instincts are capable of waking up unexpectedly and I find it hard to control myself at times.
I often come accross people that have very naïve opinions on political issues; for example, to my absolute surprise, many people seem to believe there is such thing as human rights.
Sorry, we’re not born with human rights. Human rights are a human invention. Human rights are “born” as a contract in which we give certain rights to some and convert it into obligations for others. Interestingly, it is frequently not those others who actually pay for it.
The same applies to Constitutions.
A Constitution is some sort of a contract in which rights and obligations are clearly written, or, are they?:
- One side is us
- Another side is those in government
- Our rights include things such as security, public pensions, public health, social security, property rights, etc…, depending on the country you live in.
- Our obligations include paying taxes, complying with the law…
- Rights in the side of those in government include a public salary, bodyguard if needed, frequently a home, a car and a driver, and occassionally your private jet too, among others.
- The obligations of those in Government include complying with the law and things like… wait a minute, what exactly are the obligations of those in government? Are their obligations exactly the same as those elsewhere? If yes, why do they have different rights? Have you got any idea of what exactly are the obligations of those who are in power?
In other words, the most important contract we can currently be held accountable for and the obligations for one side of the contract are not particularly clear, or, even if they are, they don’t seem to be working.
Do you think that is a sustainable relationship?
Do you think a contractual relationship in which incentives are clearly not alligned is sustainable over time?
It is mainly for this reason that I believe many countries will disintegrate in the short run or alternatively, they will change so much compared to what they are right now, that they will be eventually hard to recognize.
Your counterpart in this contractual relationship can keep converting your rights into the obligations of their successors (aka debt) that keeps accumulating. But not even their successors will fulfill their obligations but our sons and daughters instead.
So basically politicians keep throwing money out of the window to keep certain segments of each of their voters happy, money, that is raised through debt.
Debt as a result, is simply the accumulation of unfulfilled obligations in this contractual relationship. And it’s a lot.
The writers of Constitutions took great care of limiting the power of governments but never could they have thought that poor property rights would allow to turn obligations into ever accumulating debt.
In what other contractual relationship or relationship of any kind, have you been providing value for decades while at the same time did get value in return that would be eventually be paid by either yourself or your kids?
As the Selfish gene book explains, when in value exchange two strangers (i.e. outside each other’s Dunbar number) don’t exchange value immediately, it is very likely that the part receiving value first will cheat and will not return it back. This applies to nearly every animal species in nature.
I’m from Spain but I’m pretty sure that you will agree with me that, both our Countries are value exchanges.
We provide taxes, compliance with several laws even if we don’t agree with them, simply because we see more advantages in doing so than in the reverse, for example, in terms of internal and external security. We delegate it to 3rd parties because economies of scale still prevale in the execution of violence. Both sides of the agreement historically profited from this relationship, it was a positive sum game.
Politicians are constantly telling you that you’re one of theirs, that you belong in the same team; it’s a relationship based on identity not on good arguments, not even political or economic programs and the actual reason is, because the reality is that they are just strangers you simply share nationality and sometimes language with. By identifying with you they are doing their best to earn your trust.
But that trust is systematically broken.
Why is it possible for politicians to get away with it?
Other than Bitcoin, you hardly own anything actually as most of your property rights are subject to other people’s opinion.
A judge, a politician and sometimes a dictator can decide over your property and change opinion over night. Sometimes your rights were 100 and all of a sudden turn out to become 70. Some other times it is inflation, confiscation or the usual raise in taxes.
As I have explained in other articles and this video, when you own Bitcoins, your property rights are more secure thanks to mathematics than with any other private property. Your bitcoins are safer because there is no middle ground. Owning bitcoin is binary, either you own them or you don’t. And with the right protocols and technologies, bitcoins are extremely expensive to seize, to the point that the cost of an attack will be easily and frequently way more expensive than the value of those bitcoins, rendering any attack attempt utterly useless.
The main problem with conventional forms of money is that they are controlled by someone and are as a result mutable to their benefit.
Bitcoin is the only form of money uncontrolled by anyone. It is revolutionary and there no single other cryptocurrency able to match this.
The question is: how long are your fellow citizens going to be ok with paying the consequences of the terrible management from their politicians?
How long are we going to be fulfilling our part of the contract (aka Constitution) without the other side fulfilling theirs?
But even if we are ok with it, how long is it economically and socially sustainable to have two social classes, 1 those that capture value from others and 2 those that create it?
The problem is that the system incentivises a growing vote from the former, strangulating at the same time the latter.
Recent social tension is the result of this growing social class division between those who believe they have a right to other people’s property (as they have been indoctrinated to believe for the last few decades) and those who believe have a right to their own property.
There are only two possible outcomes for this:
- Growing communism/populism
The solution is the emergence of an asset with clear property rights that will best preserve its users’ value, so that whenever politicans want to seize it, it will make it so expensive that it will be more reasonable to simply fulfill its part of the contractual agreement.
That is Bitcoin and this is the main reason I’m so completely obsessed with it. It’s going to change everything. All my life and investment decisions are taken assuming that the market will slowly understand that Bitcoin fulfills money’s role best, understood as moving value between production (collection of money) and consumption (payment of money) with the lowest erosion of value (understood too, as its dilution (inflation), cost of maintenance and deterioration).
Even if you are a hard core Statist, you will seek to preserve your value in the best possible way. Even if you are a politician and your job depends on preserving the status quo.
The moment Bitcoin becomes large enough, politicians’ mismanagement will have consequences as they won’t be able to compensate for them with our wealth or it will at least be way more expensive to do so.
At that point, politicians will have two choices:
- Fulfill their part in our contractual relationship
- Delegate this side to the private sector
Promising things to voters with someone else’s efforts will stop making economic sense for politicians.
The moment this happens, the State will stop having the weight in the economy it currently has. Efficiency will be the main goal for everyone and efficiency can hardly be reached with massive bureaucratic entities keeping its current territorial integrity.